An article in the Church Times gives a synopsis of the recent Conference on Anglicanorum coetibus, held at Pusey House in Oxford. After listening to the presentations and the questions which followed, I would say that the article is an accurate account of the proceedings.
Anglican aspect of life in Ordinariate questioned
by Bill Bowder
DOUBTS have been raised about whether former Church of England clerics would have distinctive “transferrable skills” to bring to the Roman Catholic Church, if they ceased to be part of the Anglican Communion.
At a meeting on Saturday at Pusey House in Oxford, the Revd Jonathan Baker SSC, Principal of Pusey House, said that a group was gathering to reflect on what was the “distinct tradition” within the Anglican Church, fostered since the Reformation, which was “potentially capable of finding its way to enrich the life of the wider Catholic Church”.
Under the norms of Benedict XVI’s Anglicanorum Coetibus, clergy trained in seminaries in the proposed Ordinariate (News, 23 October) would be tutored in “those aspects of Anglican patrimony that are of particular value” to the RC Church.
One speaker, Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity at Cambridge, and an Irish Roman Catholic, asked what “transferrable skills” Anglicans would bring. He said that what was distinctive was that they had been “shaped” by the Royal Supremacy, which had had a “moderating impact” on the differences in the Church of England between Catholics and Protestants.
“A fundamental part of the nature, identity, and patrimony of Anglicanism comes from the enforced co-existence of the Catholic dimension of Anglicanism within other more Protestant streams within an establishment,” Professor Duffy said. There would be “big problems imagining how it would retain its coherence and Anglican identity outside those constraints. . . Could choral evensong survive in a minority uniate Church . . . within Roman Catholicism?”
Canon Robin Ward, the Principal of St Stephen’s House, said that the Pope, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, had seen in Anglicanism “a significant Catholic potential — a self-renewing Catholic principle”. Part of the Pope’s motivation in Anglicanorum Coetibus was to find a “juridical and theological way” in which this worthwhile distinctiveness could make a contribution to the greater communion of the catholica.
Anglican moral theology within an Ordinariate would not provide different answers to contested questions (such as contraception, divorce, and homosexuality), but it could bring “the virtue of religion”, the way in which, in Anglicanism, worship, piety, and external religion were formed into a national “sacral landscape”. Anglicans could demonstrate that “a moral ethic based on custom does not mean disorder”.
The Revd Philip North, Team Rector of Old St Pancras, London, warned that the opportunities for mission would be reduced because “we have the furniture of the Church of England,” which occupied a legal and cultural role. This was part of the nation’s self-understanding, responsible for whole communities. “Is that patrimony importable?” he asked.
Clergy in the Ordinariate would have to be in secular employment because the Roman Catholic Church could not raise the money — £64,000 in his case in London — to keep them in a house and stipend. Fr North said that the Ordinariate could become irrelevant: “If we reach a point where staying is not an option, then traditional conversion is far more likely to offer the kind of enrichment and ministry that we know now.”
There’s no doubt that the speakers are all distinguished men – fine scholars, faithful priests, all respected for their work and certainly men of faith. I think, also, that their assessment of the situation is quite accurate. And to me, that’s a disappointment.
Most of us thought that an Ordinariate in England would be among the first to be established. Now I’m not so sure. This is just my personal opinion, mind you, but after listening to what the speakers had to say at the Conference, it seems pretty clear that most of the Anglo-catholics there are collectively scratching their heads, wondering what Pope Benedict saw, that would ever make him think there was such a thing as an Anglican patrimony to bring into the Catholic Church. And in the case of England, they may have something of a point.
When I was a young Anglican curate back in the mid-1970’s, I was serving in a moderately catholic parish, St. Stephen Southmead in Bristol. As I recall, we were using some sort of Alternative Service Book, with something called “Series 2” and “Series 3,” or some such thing. On the first Sunday of the month we used the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. I was blissfully unaware of what was going on in the more “advanced” catholic parishes. They had simply gone over to the Missal of Paul VI, as well as the Roman Breviary. In so doing, the Anglo-catholics/Anglo-papists had cut their ties with all forms of Anglican worship, although they continued to be part of the Church of England, and their parishes were the lawful parishes for their respective territories. This explains to me why some of the speakers at the Pusey House Conference would refer mostly to buildings and territorial parishes. In fact, one of the presenters, Fr. Philip North, told a story which everyone thought quite amusing, recounting his one attempt to celebrate the Holy Eucharist using the Book of Common Prayer. A life-long Anglican, he’d never used it before, and he described how he “ran out of breath” as he was trying to get the unfamiliar words out.
No wonder they’re mystified as they try to figure out what Anglican patrimony might be.
Now, I’m the first one to agree that our patrimony can’t be defined in a precise way. But I do know that a big part of it is defined by how we worship and the words we use in that worship. Without some form of the Book of Common Prayer, it’s pretty tough to preserve anything resembling our Anglican patrimony. What we heard from Pusey House confirms that fact.
I have no idea what will happen in England regarding an Ordinariate. Perhaps a number of Anglo-catholics will rediscover some of their Prayer Book heritage and decide they want to return to a recognizably Anglican form of worship. They may discover that having personal parishes rather than territorial parishes actually can open up new aspects of ministry, never explored before. They may discover that there's more to it than just "the furniture" (as Fr. North referenced).
All I have left to say is this: I hope – really, really hope – they’ll give an Ordinariate a chance to work, and not simply be absorbed, as was strongly suggested at the Conference. After all, the Holy Father saw something he thought was worthy of being nurtured and shared with the whole Church. If he saw something, I would hope that the Anglo-catholics in England will at least have a look for it themselves.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
As a traditionalist Latin Catholic, the idea of Anglo-Catholic Anglicans leaving 1662 for the Novus Ordo Missæ in conversational English is completely mystifying. I have no understanding of this at all. Why, why, why would people who could have gone from 1662 to the Anglican Missal of 1921 or the English Missal of 1912 or the Roman Missal of 1962 (whether in Latin or in a preconciliar translation) want to go to the Novus Ordo in non-sacral wording? It is like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
To me, this is about as bizarre as anything could be. Surely, the 1662 is far better than the Novus Ordo. If you want to 'go Catholic', you just substitute the traditional Roman Canon and Offertory (i.e. that of all the Missals of Rome from 1474 to 1962) and continue on. If you want to go 'all the way' to Rome liturgically, you simply say the pre-conciliar Roman Mass in sacral English. Who in his right mind, if he were a traditionalist of any stripe, would want to adopt the N.O.? I shall never understand Church of England Anglo-Catholics.
P.K.T.P.
" I shall never understand Church of England Anglo-Catholics."
It's because Anglicans never had a Vatican II style liturgical updating! And not all Anglo-Catholics are traditionalists like that of the EF kind. You have a lot of people whom I describe would like the Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Way.
Catholic Anglicans never were forced by episcopal conference diktat to do this or that! But Vatican II did really influence them. It is so obvious in the Catholic party (whatever remains of it) in the US Episcopal Church.
The US Pastoral Provision Anglican Use precisely does what Peter says. It expunged the Cranmer's Eucharistic prayer with the Roman Canon.
Unlike what is happening in the Latin Church, Catholic minded Anglicans are one in mind on one thing
Catholic Anglicans won't have any of that female priest and bishops thingy!
Well, to answer Fr. North's question, I am assuming that Anglicans share a cultural patrimony which is valuable to them. It ought to be, since in includes literary and musical treasrues that are valuable for the entire world. On the financial question, A.C. does provide for some support from the Conferences of Bishops, while it also allows secular employment on week-days. As I see it, the provisions are very flexible.
This is probably not the best time to bring together professors and ditherers of all stripes to question what will happen next. The process has begun. Anglo-Catholics have had centuries to prepare for this moment and to prepare their liturgy. They didn't bother, preferring endless chatter among themselves (which, by the way, makes them much like Roman curialists). Now the Pope has acted and the wild sheep from without the sheepfold are having to get their act together at the gate. It's all for the best. Anglicans will bring much devotion to the Church and a wonderful artistic patrimony that is very much connected to belief: lex orandi, lex credendi. The time for discussion is after the deed is done.
P.K.T.P.
On Fr. Phillips' closing remarks, it needs to be reiterated what A.C. says about the personal nature of these ordinariates. While the framers of A.C. were remiss in restricting each of them to the territory of just one episcopal conference (consider the mess this creates, in particular, for the TAC in Central America), they were very wise in allowing for more than one ordinariate per episcopal conference. Since these jurisdictions are primarily personal rather than territorial in nature, they can share all of the same territory or partial overlapping territory; it is also possible to have more than one in non-overlapping territory in the territory of a single episcopal conference.
Is this just theory? Not a chance. Already, Bishop Nona of the TAC church of the Torres Strait has said that he will apply for an ordinariate separate from the general one for Australia. I'm guessing that the Melanesian one will cover all of Queensland, whereas the general one will cover all of Australia, including Queensland. Even if the one for the Torres Strait covers only part of Queensland, the two will likely overlap territorially (or else there will be two non-overlapping ordinariates in the territory of a single episcipal conference, which would be much less practical and convenient). At any rate, there are to be at least two ordinariates existing in the Commonwealth of Australia.
It follows logically that there can be two ordinariates for England and Wales. Since the TAC in England has already requested an ordinariate and has asked that Bishop Mercer, one of its own, be the ordinary, Rome should consider that on its own merits. In my view, it would make far more sense for the ditherers in FiF to ask for their own ordinariate covering the same territory. The reason is disparity of worship and history. I don't think that these two groups belong together, which is why they have been apart for years.
Of course, this is not to suggest that Rome will grant a separate ordinariate to each incoming group. That would be insane. But this is a special case, justifed by a clear difference in worship. Compare the situation for the erection of personal dioceses in Canon 372.2: "If … it is thought to be helpful, there may be established in a given territory particular churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or by some other similar quality".
Trust me, this is the MODEL for the ordinariates in the first place. The Campos structure in Brazil was the precedent in the Latin Church which allowed all of this to happen (even though, in practice, the new personal ordinariates are identical to the Armenian ordinariates).
The FiF people seem to have their liturgical house in order, even if this is an ordered error (viz. recouse to the N.O.M.). Now we must see if the TAC can get its liturgical house in order. It has had twenty years to do so and has failed so far. But pressure gets people to act. Orate, fratres . . . .
P.K.T.P.
I listened to Duffy's talk and was very disappointed with it. I actually thought it was utter rot. The Anglican churches in other countries are not established churches and they still preserve the Anglican heritage or at least they did until the modernists in them started to destroy it. Those extreme Anglo-Catholics are a pain anyway, using the Roman Missal and dressing up like Tridentine period priests; why all the play acting at being a Roman Catholic? It sounds to me like they need to enter into renewal with the Anglican tradition — the Pope gets it but they don't for all their papal trappings. It would seem the Anglican tradition is best being preserved in America in the Anglican Use parishes and also in the TAC — they get it and they live it.
I shall be very sorry if no Ordinariate is established in England. Elements in the Anglo-Catholic movement seem to have made the same mistake as was made by some of the late nineteenth century converts (such as Faber), believing that to be truly Catholic you must abandon your Englishness. We are now in the position of people told that an old family heirloom they had put in the attic as junk is really a valuable antique, to be cherished and restored. Rediscovering our positive English heritage (which is not simply post-Reformation, but goes back beyond that) will be a real challenge. I hope we shall rise to it, because if not, where is our loyalty to the Holy Father's vision? He wants this to work, and we must make it work.
You will rise to the challenge. It will take your consent to grace. The Lord will give you all the grace that is needed and thanks be to God that a tremendous amount of grace is needed. All things are possible with God.
I'll have to agree with Athol. If there were nothing worth salvaging from the Tradition Anglican tradition, Anglicans would have gone to Rome ages ago. It's certainly a whole lot easier than going it alone outside the Anglican Communion and often driving longer distances to get to Mass.
People here know why people have bothered to go the hard route, even if they don't know how to express it. What we don't need is academics theorizing about what might be salvaged. What we need is people with good journalism skills who are able to extract the hard to describe aspect of what people value and express clearly what the consensus is unable to. And as Athol points out, we're not starting with a blank slate; we have the Anglican Use as a good place to start.
You know one of the things that I miss the most from my Anglican days as a Catholic layman is the evangelical Anglican tradition of Bible studies. I hope that is part of the Anglican way that will come and hopefully influence the greater Catholic Church. I also miss the old style Anglican charismatic way (pre Toronto blessing) where the charismatic graces and blessings were adapted to the gentler and moderate Anglican style rather than the pentecostalist style of many Roman Catholic charismatics. The best Anglican parishes I attended were High Church and charismatic. The music in these services were often inspired by the Celtic heritage and were really beautiful but also modern. I think we need treasures old and new. Also one of the things I love about the Anglican and NO masses is the comprehensive readings from the Old Testament which is lacking in the TLM-EF. Also the Anglican tradition of good preaching would also benefit the Roman Rite Church.
I agree with all the posters here so far. Again, I believe that there definitely *is* and Anglican patrimony and that it definitely is worth preserving. It is liturgical and literary and musical and has a tremendous value. I also think that Duffy's position is rot.
What is needed in a new 'Anglicatholic' liturgy is a strong grounding in the prayerbook tradition plus the Roman Canon and Roman Offertory, meaning those from before 1970. This is a marriage that can work in the case of the Mass. I'd mosly leave your other liturgies as they are. Your Morning Prayer & Evensong is lovely. I think that it would be fine to *include* the Sarum Use as your connexion with the pre-Reformation period. Adding things does not take away from the rest.
P.K.T.P.
Amen to that! I wouldn't call all of those as "Anglicatholic". I would call it Anglican still. I would call Ordinariate Mass as the Anglican Form of the Roman Rite. This distinguishes it from the Extraordinary Form (which is NOT ANGLICAN) and the Ordinary Form (which also is NOT ANGLICAN)
Evensong and Morning Prayer are just the jewels of this patrimony.
But the real patrimony, treasure or the Anglican Pearl of Great Price that we are willing to sell everything to get it is the liturgical and spiritual MODERATION that is prized in Anglican spirituality be that it be low church, high church or Anglo-Catholic.
The Anglican Communion especially in the West has cast this Pearl to the swine!
Pope Benedict XVI gets what that means. We readers of this blog have not completely understood it.
On terminology, like many traditionalist Catholics, I absolutely refuse this O.F. and E.F. terminology and reject that small part of S.P. that uses it. I have argued (at great length) that S.P. is in error on this: the two are not two forms of one Rite; they are two separate Rites of Mass. Therefore, I use the T.L.M./N.O.M. terminology. No, I am not willing to re-argue this here. It's off-topic here.
I use the term 'Anglicatholic' (with a separating i rather than o) to refer by anticipation to the Catholic Anglican rites that are to come.
I think that not only Evensong and Morning Prayer but also much of the Anglican Prayerbook Service is a cultural treasure. While the 1921 A.M. has problems in it, at least in terrms of content, I think that it points the way to a fusion of this treasure with the Traditional Roman Offertory & Canon. That's the right direction for the Mass.
P.K.T.P.
PKTP,
Let me re-phrase your first (axiomatic, off-topic) paragraph with one small change (in bold):
So, you are also of the "hermeneutic of rupture" mentality, albeit opposite in sign to the usual suspects? How does that help Anglo-Catholics move their ball down the field? Are we (Catholics) not all in favor of organic development, rather than artificial constructs concocted by theorists, of one sign or the other?
BTW, I am unwilling to debate this issue here; I re-raise the point you mention to provoke thought, because I think it is very much not off-topic in a discussion of "patrimony".
Sorry but I have to use what the Pope used in AC. If there are two Latin Rites , the TLM and the NO, then there are two Latin Churches. Silly as it seems, the NO Catholics may petition Rome (not the TEC as some wags expect) for their Novus Romanum Ordinariate.
Dear Father,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your comments. As I read the source article I was thinking to myself, "I'm getting so bloody tired of hearing about the English Anglicans wondering about our Anglican patrimony." The fact is they deserted our patrimony when they started using the Roman Missal. While FiF in England is fairly good size, they are not the majority of Anglo-catholics throughout the world. The majority of us have not abandoned our patrimony as we use some form of the Book of Common Prayer (the Book of Divine Worship in the case of Anglican Use parishes and the 1928 BCP and/or the English/Anglican Missal in the case of the ACA/TAC).
His Holiness knows the Anglican prayerbook tradition and obviously cherishes it more than do our Anglican brethren in the British Isles. The Apostolic Constitution specifically states that we are to share this treasure with the rest of the Church Catholic. Maybe the Brits need a refresher course from us in the colonies. LOL!
Well put! I note that there is nothing here in Canada much like the FiF U.K. direction. I think that part of the problem in the U.K. is the sense that one needs 'authority': it must be King or Pope and therefore the Anglican Standard Liturgy or the Roman Standard. Those of us in the colonies have never had that sense of the Anglican Church as the official state church that somehow projects a needed authority or order.
P.K.T.P.
A few posts back somebody identified three types of possible Anglican converts to the Ordinariate. Two of these types I could not really identify with; I am a Prayer Book Anglican here in the USA. According to this current batch of posts, Prayer Book Anglicans appear to be the type of Anglican that has a patrimony going back to the beginnings of Anglicanism. Mind you, I’m not discounting the other two groups, or saying that they don’t have any patrimony, I don’t really know anything about their patrimony; but there appears to be an emerging argument regarding the patrimony of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. For most Anglicans in the USA this patrimony stems from their usage of the 1928 or later versions, as they are the most widely used. If this argument holds any water, then what are the specifics of this Prayer Book patrimony? And, what is it about this patrimony that transcends our particular experience here in the USA that could be considered as universal to all Anglicans?
I look forward to other’s thoughts and insights.
Blessings.
Clark
Well, my understanding is that the larger provinces of Anglicanism all have their special prayerbooks, and that these come mostly either from the English tradition of 1662 or from a more High Church Scots tradition of the 18th century. What they all have in common is a derivation from the 1549 and 1662 books (less so the two others between these dates).
P.K.T.P.
I will be taking up the question in detail of what constitutes the Anglican Patrimony. I encourage all of you to read my fist installment here:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-is-anglican-patrimony-spoken-of-by.html
You may also find this enjoyable too:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-new-missal-translations-ought-to.html
I've enjoyed your blog in the past, this is yet more reason to do so. Thanks.
I think a lot of the problem in England stands from the fact that no one really can agree on what an Anglican patrimony is. They've gone their own ways within themselves and a lot of them have done with their liturgy what they like, as long as they think it's true to Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism or whatever.
Have a read of this post on the St. Barnabas blog. The priest is very traditional, Catholic-minded and is considering the Pope's offer. He goes to visit a fellow priest in Canada of a similar persuasion. Here he writes about presiding over a solemn high mass:
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2010/04/18/solemn-high-mass/
The telling, and confusing for me, quote is this:
It seems they can't even agree among themselves.
I'm told that there is wide variety even from parish to parish of the TAC here in Canada. To a Roman, this entire idea is unthinkable. The post-Vatican II Roman way is that every priest absolutely must use the N.O. Missal (or at least some approved Missal). However, as long as he has that and only that on the Altar, what happens in actual practice varies 'as the spirit moves him'. But the idea of not having a set text to depart from is anathema to Romans. I expect that Latins and Anglicatholics in the new ordinariates will have to adjust to each other's ways. In the Latin Church, the idea of using bits and pieces from different sources for Mass is unimaginable, and completely shocking.
This will all be fun in the end.
P.K.T.P.
Getting away from liturgy, for the moment, another important part of Anglican Patrimony, as it has developed in recent centuries, is a willingness to give lay-people real responsibility both locally and more widely. This is not spelled out in AC, but I hope it will be allowed for in practice. As a parish priest, I have greatly valued the support of churchwardens and church councils, but it takes some self-discipline for priests to accept that they have to persuade people rather than simply give orders.
As someone who has been steeped in the Catholic tradition of Ecclesia Anglicana since birth, whose father and grandfather knew Fr.Tooth, and whose grandfather was around when Bishop King was tried (curiously, unbeknown to the paternal side, my maternal grandmother was also an early member of the English Church Union), may I be permitted to attempt an answer to Peter's initial comment[#1 above]:
Who in his right mind, if he were a traditionalist of any stripe, would want to adopt the N.O.? I shall never understand Church of England Anglo-Catholics.
If I may put it crudely, very crudely, following the tractarian movement and the liturgical revival of the mid-19th.century, by the end of the century liturgically the movement had slit into two camps. Both saw the English Reformation as an erastian blot on the Church's history, and both sought to worship as if nothing had happened in the 16th century save the inroduction of the vernacular. Liturgically, as I shall observe later, a third strand emerged during the 1970s.
One camp, dismissively referred to as "British Museum religion" by the other, sought liturgy and ceremonial as it had been in 1547 – Sarum – Sarum ceremonial, Sarum vestments, and the 1662 Prayer Book suppplemented by material translated from Sarum sources. As the prayer book had said, Chancels shall remain as "in times past", the ornaments and vestments as in the first year of Edward VI (before the prayer book of 1549). Its most notable proponent was the Revd.Percy Dearmer, whose guide to liturgy and ceremonial The Parson's Handbook ran into seveeral editions. Members of this group saw themselves as loyal to the Church of England, heirs not only of Augustine, but also of the British Church before 597. The marks of "English Use" ceremonial were gothic chasubles, albs and apparelled amices for servers, and "English" altars with two candles on the altar, riddel-posts and curtains. Post reformation devotions such as Benediction and Stations of the Cross were eschewed [but curiously, not the Three Hours].
The other party, the Anglo-Catholics, (including Anglo-Papalists or Ultramontanists) likewise asserted that the English Reformation was a state imposed schism, but argued that had the English Church continued in communion with Rome, it would have developed as Rome had: unified missal.
Vespers [or Evensong] & Benediction, and obedience to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in matters ceremonial. The Anglican Missal or the English Missal were the liturgical books of choice, with altar and pew editions, both containing the entire prayer boook Canon as an alternative, the former Canons from other prayer books too, the latter the alternative lections from the Missale Romanum and the Latin Canon.
In general, loyalty to the vernacular continued, though in a few parishes – St.Magnus, London Bridge and St.Alban's, Fulham inter alia, as well as religious communities like Nashdom and Edgware, – Latin was the only language heard in public worship. The "silent" Canon meant that it could be wrapped (in Latin or English} around the prayerbook words of consecration. Non-communicatig High Mass on Sundays was the norm. In the Diocese of Zanzibar the English mIssal translated into Swahili became the official prayer book, as (in English) it did, I beleieve, in one or more dioceses in the West Indies.
How does this explain the widespread use by English Angl-Catholics of the revised Missale Romanum in English put out by Rome, the Novus Ordo Missæ which so offends Peter?
Obedience to the S.C.R. meant adopting the changes to the Missal of the twentieth century. The new prefaces (e.g.of the Dead), the revisions to Holy Saturday and then Holy Week, the changes of 1965. So far, so good. Then, in the wake of Vatican II, The revised Missal, in "official English", first retaining sacral language – thees and thous -no problem, the English Missal was accurate anyway, then the "approved" ICEL/ICET texts. Those in the tradition of obedience to the S.C.R. adopted the new books. It was not any conscious rejection of sacral prayer-book English, it was done in the same tradition of the the Anglo-Catholics who had gone before, not so muchaping Rome, as detractors would have it, as loyally obeyng Rome. Indeed, many Anglo-Catholics were far more conscious of what the new GIRM permitted than their separated brethren (except in the likes of Brompton Oratory) and High Masses continue to be seen using the new texts, but ad orientem and even sometimes wuth free-standing altars and the celebrant sitting behind the altar for the liturgy of the Word. Others, unsurprisingly, followed the latest <fashions of their Roman neighbours, which were not always in conformity with the most liberal interpretation of the new GIRM. But generally, the Angliocan ethos of all things done "decently and in order" has prevailed.
From the 1960s onwards, as Fr.Phillips has indicated in his post, liturgial "renewal" and experiment was not confined to the Holy See, nor, indeed to Anglicans. A succession of rites appeared, culminating in Common Worship in 2000. This last allows enormouslatitude to the celebrant. Some Anglo-Catholics, believing that now the Church of England had rites which were not "deficient" and could be used with good conscience, now use Anglican rites supplemented in the tradition of both followers of Dearmer and users of the English Missal with material from "other sources". Such supplementing and "use of traditional texts" is permitted by [Anglican] Canon [law]. Hence the references in the quote from Fr.Ed in Comment #14. There was also the growing realisation following from the work of Dix in The Shape of the Liturgy that there had never been a universal papapal liturgy -"The modern Anglican celebrant can have six candles on his altar like some of the Avignon Popes of the fourteenth century, or seven like the Popes at the end of the thirteenth century, or two likew the Popesat the end pof the twelfth century, or even none at all like the Popes at the end of the eleventh century — and be happily conscious that historically he is being just as 'Roman' in whatever he does. If he really wants to be 'primitive'in such matters, he must celebrate facing the people across the altar — like all the Popes in every century — and with no candles and no cross (and no vases or flowers or book-stand) — like all the Popes of the first thousand years. What preposterous nonsense it is to try to erect sacristy orthodoxies and even tests of theological allegiance [my emphasis] out of these minute details of pious furnishing that have varied endlessly throughout christian history and have never particularly meant anything by their changes!" [page 421].
It is this liturgical smorgesbrød [have I spelt that right?] that the English Ordinariate will have to tackle.
I do realise that this is a somewhat crude, broad brush analysis but I hope to have given our friends across the Pond some understanding of the situation here. It is ironic, is it not, that just as it was the Pope in 1570 who finally sent the Church of England into schism, so in the closing decades of the 20th century the loyalty (of those sent into schism) to the decrees of Rome should call into question their enthusiasm for the current Papal initiaitive [which I welcome] of the Ordinariate? In the matters of liturgy Rome post Vatican II pulled so many rugs from beneath the feet of Anglo-Catholics.
However, Anglicanorum Cœtibus clearly makes provision for the right of every priest of the Ordinariate to use
a] the Missale Romanum of 2002 in Latin or the vernacular
b] the Missale Romanum of 1962
c] a [yet to be] approved Anglican Use.
One graceful solution might be to allow the English Missal translation of the MR 1962 as an alternative to [b] above, in addition to producing a worthy "Anglican Use" for [c] which accurately reflects our diverse liturgical patrimony. There is also the questions of of the Calendar and Lectionary, which I have scarcely seen mentioned in any of the diverse comments on and off the internet.
What is important here, surely, is not to pass judgement on the faithful Anglican diaspora around the world, but try to come to an understanding of the differing histories which have shaped each group? Only then can some harmonious way forward be discerned.
One is reminded of, and I will finish with, Paul's comment in the third chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians: "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. . .he that planteh and he that watereth are one…"
Best regards
John U.K.
John U.K.,
You mention that "there is also the question of of the Calendar", among other things. As I think you know, Fr. Hunwicke addressed the Calendar some months ago, exploring various aspects of it. As a Catholic myself, I think this is an obvious aspect of the English Patrimony which is in need of being shared with the whole Church: the long-line of English saints, and liturgical feasts/celebrations. Fr. H. made the thought-provoking point that the terms "beatification" and "canonization" used to be akin to "venerated for sanctity in the local Church" and "local veneration promoted to the universal calendar", especially in the days before the Holy See reserved such things to itself. I think I have that right.
I also think that while the whole Church is very conscious of the Saints of the the universal calendar, we need to know more about the British Saints on the British calendars. I think you are very right to include that in your list of elements of the Anglican Patrimony. A good example is Our Lady of Walsingham as an ancient pilgrimage destination! I only learned about her from an Englishman about 30 years ago (and I'm 60). Much has been lost to the whole Church from the parenthesis called the Reformation. Lost, but hopefully now to be re-discovered!
Michael:
Thank you for you comments.
The Calendar and Lectionary are, of course, matters which are not solely a matter of concern for the Ordinariates.
Fr.Hunwick, whose blog, http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/ I follow, is of course intimately concerned, as he does a great service to Anglicans in these islands by compiling each year and Ordo which covers all the diverse possibilities of both Calendar & Lectionary in the Church of England[BCP, 1928, Missal in all forms, Common Worship], in Wales and Scotland.
But if, as an Anglican, I may tip-toe into your own territory, I believe that the question of harmonising the Calendars, and to a lesser extent the old and new Lectionaries, is a pressing matter for the whole Latin Rite, not just the Ordinariates, whose advent just adds another dimension.
I am glad you have discovered Walsingham, England's National Shrine. One cannot readily forget the current Archbishop of Canterbury preaching on the feast of Our Lady of Walsingham at Mass in the presence of her statue at the French National Shrine of Lourdes You may care to also explore with Google Our Lady of Egmanton, Our Lady of Willesden, Our Lady of Penrhys (Wales) and Our Lady of Haddington (Scotland), all of which now enjoy œcumenical devotion.
Regards,
John U.K.
Dear John U.K.:
Thank you for that fascinating account, which I have read carefully. In your closing remarks, actually, at the moment, at least, (c) is the American B.D.W. of 1983, although, sooner or later, I expect it to be what you have suggested.
While this explanation elucidates the situation for England, it also shows a division there which might be best resolved by having separate and overlapping ordinariates. For your (c), I would again suggest essentially a 1662 pryaerbook rite with the Roman Offertory of 1474 rendered in sacral wording (that of the 1962 Missale Romanum–your already have this both in your 1912 English Missal and in your 1921 Angliclan Missal, the former having the better translation) plus, say, the Coverdale Gregorian Canon. If there needs to be an N.O. option, and if this is already present in (b), there also needs to be an option that marries the prayerbook forms with what is traditional in the Roman Mass for parts in which an Anglican option might be deficient or at least suspect (given what Cranmer was trying to imply regarding the meaning of the Sacrifice).
In closing, I note that the matter of an appropriate Canon goes beyond the matter of having or omitting an epiclesis. The Canon and Offertory need very much to demonstrate a connexion with Roman (pre-1970 Roman) forms. The Offertory and some of the Eucharistic Prayers of 1970 M.R., like those of the paryerbook, are problematical precisely because they are less than clear in asserting that the sacrifice offered is propitiatory. Perhaps there could be an option for inserting the U.S. or Scottish epiclesis.
P.K.T.P.
Perhaps we will better understand what our Anglican Patrimony is when we compare it bit by bit with what we consider to be the Roman Patrimony. How do we really differ? We do in fact have many points in common – after all that is what makes us Anglican Catholics.
I believe the BCP is essential. Not so much the Communion Service per se (which nobody I know uses or has ever used intact) though parts of it are of great spiritual and literary value but rather mostly the Offices, the AV and the Coverdale Psalter. These symbols have, more than anything else, formed our Anglican "brand" and personality.
Father LR-
To olive branches and new beginnings.
In previous posts I had inquired about the use of Liturgy of the Hours in the new Ordinariate. As the BCP uses the same Psalter, rhythm and structure then perhaps there is some common ground worth exploring. Vatican II requires all bishops, priests, deacons and religious to recite, at a minimum, morning and evening prayer. The laity are encouraged to use it, but there is a general lack of familiarity with the daily office. You seem to have a good grasp of the BCP and I like your line of thought. Do you have any insights into how our Anglican Prayer Book patrimony might be of use to enhance, influence or change the patrimony of LOH, or even Catholic prayer? (I use LOH daily and have had the opportunity to pray in monastic settings. I truly enjoy it and am genuinely interested in this question. I hope it piques your interest and expertise).
I look forward to your insights.
Blessings.
Clark
The main difference between the Liturgia Horarum (LH) and the BCP Mattins and Evensong is the system used for the temporal cycle. On the side of the LH, there are rich Patristic and others readings for the second Lesson of the Office of Readings. The difficulty in using these second readings with the BCP Offices would be the divergences in the temporal cycle calendar. Perhaps equivalences could be found, but it would be a painstaking task, and it would be better to have ecclesiastical approval before introducing modifications and "mixtures" of rites. It would be quite a headache!
Trying to flit between the new and old calendars would be a little like trying to make PC computers work with the Apple Macintosh system!
The BCP calendar is essentially Sarum, and fits in well with the 1962 Roman calendar, except for the differences between the Sundays after Pentecost and Sundays after Trinity. You will see how this problem is solved in the English Missal.
However, if a priest and his community are using the modern Roman rite, it makes sense to use the LH for the Office.
Thanks Clark, olive branches are good…I'm certainly no expert, just an ordinary priest with my own varied experiences. I have for several years said the Benedictine Office out of the Monastic Diurnal and Monastic Breviary Matins (both re-published by Lancelot Andrewes Press) before that I used the BCP (1928 American) which I still use on occasion. I have found the Benedictine Office to almost always conform to the Mass; that is to say that the Saint commemorated in the Office is the same commemorated at Mass. This creates continuity of thought and reinforces the celebration of the virtues exemplified by a particular Saint on his feast day; whereas the BCP Office can stand apart from the particular Saint-du-jure or, at the officiant’s choosing, it can be enhanced with a hymn and collect proper to a Saint – the BCP Office gives this freedom. Furthermore, the BCP Office, I think, has the distinct advantage of systematic and extensive Scripture readings, a thing lacking in the Benedictine Office. One can never read enough Holy Scripture! Conversely, both Monastic Matins and the LH have readings from the sermons of the Fathers as well as the occasional hagiography – here again, these too can be stitched into the BCP Office or, better yet, read in lieu of the homily at Mass. What both the Benedictine Office and the BCP Office have in common that is lacking in the LH is the language of the AV and the Coverdale Psalter. I believe that these two things, the AV and the Coverdale, linguistically and symbolically capture the essence of so much that is authentically Anglican and Anglican Catholic. The Coverdale Psalter deserves pride of place because of its indebtedness to the S Jerome Vulgate translation from the Septuagint (that one ed. by Origen) which until recently has been the standard for recitation of the Psalter at the Divine Office. Though S Jerome translated the Psalter from both the Masoretic as well as the Septuagint text (twice actually from the Greek – (1) the Greek ed. by Origen, known as the “Gallican,” and (2) the Greek known as the “Roman”) into Latin, it was the Septuagint (Gallican) translation that has been loved and used by the Church for nearly two millennia. I suggest reading John Henry Blunt’s The Annotated Book of Common Prayer (re-published and available through lulu.com) page 498 in particular, if you are interested in more of this history. In case you’re wondering, the only reason I say the Benedictine Office more regularly than the BCP Office is because the Benedictine Office takes you through the Psalter in a week rather than a month; and I love the Psalter.
There is a turn of phrase that is always fresh and inspiring to be found in the AV and Coverdale that is confounded in more “exact,” “literal” and “up to date” translations. Despite the translational errors in the Coverdale and AV they both capture the spirit and majesty of the Word of God better than any other translations that I know; not to mention the fact that they seethe with Anglican Patrimony. An Anglican Ordinariate without the AV and the Coverdale will in time wither on the vine. Of course, this sounds very Anglo-centric, it is only natural. Perhaps other nations have their equivalent of the AV and Coverdale, I don’t know, but in my opinion no other language/translation can sustain what are, after all, going to be groups of Anglican Catholics.
Does this make sense? It is a hard thing to argue for particular translations and turns of phrase because they seem such transient things. Essentially we are dealing with a philosophical argument (everybody has opinions in such things) but if we “believe what we pray” and “pray what we believe” then style and language ought to be of paramount importance.
Father LR-
We seem to share a mutual love for the Breviary. I discovered LH about a year or two before I converted; I have been using it ever since.
In the monastic tradition of prayer, long before the canon of Scripture was established, the Psalms were used because they were viewed as the purest expression of God’s word. Both the cathedral tradition and the monastic tradition that developed in the Latin Church kept this practice. The beauty I find in using LH, which is also true for BCP and the Benedictine Office (I will look this one up, as I am not familiar with it. Considering I have been trained by Benedictines, so I should become familiar with this heritage), is that in offering my prayers I am praying the prayer of the Church throughout the world. And, although we may be separated in communion, we are united in prayer with our fellow Christian Anglicans and Orthodox.
You are correct in pointing out the deficiency of language in LH. It would be my prayer that in the future Ordinariate we could see this corrected. However, the beauty of LH is that is can be used in either the short form or long form, here I am speaking of the single volume edition and the four volume edition. Additionally, Catholicbookpublishing.com puts out the annual St. Joseph Guide to LH. For those who prefer the web universalis.com and ebreviary.com are excellent sources. Since universalis.com is published in the UK the language is more to our liking.
I agree with you regarding the use of Scripture. I may be incorrect, but it appears LH has greater variety in its readings, both Scriptural and from the saints, than BCP. This is particularly true if you are receipting the daily Office of Readings. I generally use the shorter Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. I believe they go through the Psalter in four weeks. As I used BCP very little as a Prayer Book, I am a little ignorant regarding its formulation for prayer. My experience is that it is a bit rote. Am I correct in this?
Thank you for your insights regarding the AV, the Coverdale and the history lesson. I will look all of these up. Do you see a possibility of some sort of merging of lessons/traditions of the BCP and LH?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Blessings.
Clark
I admit a great deal of ignorance regarding the modern LH, not due to prejudice but rather from lack of experience. The closest thing I can relate to is the Short Breviary published by OB, Collegeville (1941) which I like but, coming from an AV-Coverdale background, the English is flat. For example, Psalm 125 (126) in the Short Breviary reads:
“When the Lord ended the captivity of Sion, we were then as in a dream.”
The Coverdale:
“When the LORD turned again the captivity of Sion, then were we like unto them that dream.”
The first one get’s her done, but the second one is a poetic symphony of the imagination. This seems to be a general problem with the modern and post-modern Office (I note here that the translation of the same verse in the current LH reads: “When the Lord gave Zion back her captives, we became like dreamers” – by comparison, dullsville; don’t you agree?) And while one expects a certain amount of dryness to accompany any recitation that is repeated regularly, the sacral/Cranmerian English of the Anglican tradition doesn’t give the reader an excuse on account of the literary and stylistic banality. Of course, the Vulgate (“In converendo Dominus captivitatem Sion, Facti sumus sicut consolati”) in its simplicity accomplishes the same poetic beauty as the Coverdale which, after all, is why both have survived the centuries.
You are correct that the BCP Office is a bit rote. This is due to the elimination of all elements proper to Saint’s or Feast Days. More recently some have integrated the BCP Office with the Church calendar. The Benedictine Office of the “Monastic Diurnal” and accompanying “Matins” books I previously mentioned is one of these integrations. The “Anglican Breviary” is yet another. Also, “The English Office” re-published by Canterbury Press in 2006 (without a lectionary) and I think soon to be re-re-published (with a lectionary). While each integrates the BCP Office with the calendar differently the unifying factor in all is the AV and the Coverdale.
To answer your question: “Do you see a possibility of some sort of merging of lessons/traditions of the BCP and LH?” I truly think this has already been accomplished in the three mentioned Offices (1) Monastic Diurnal with Matins (Benedictine Office) (2) Anglican Breviary and (3) The English Office. All three of these blend the BCP Office with the thoroughness of LH Office; though should the Ordinariats devise a “new” Office for official use I will obediently use it, my sincere hope is that the AV and Coverdale survive. If they don’t, I don’t think there will be any Anglican Patrimony to speak of in a decade. It will mean that Anglican Catholics have been “absorbed” and this must not be allowed to happen.
Father LR-
I agree with you regarding the language of LH, the BCP is much richer. This rich use of language is part of our Anglican patrimony. Too bad my friends at Lit. Press prefer inclusive language, they have many outstanding publications. I have passed by their office many times during summer school at St. Johns School of Theology (these are the Benedictines to whom I am indebted for an excellent graduate education in theology). I also have quite a few of their publications in my library.
Part of the reason for my question lies in the fact that LH is considered the prayer of the Church. I’m not sure whether or not LH, or a form of LH, is used by Eastern Catholics, but it would be a pity if our Ordinariates did not have some commonality with LH. This is where I see our Anglican patrimony coexisting with Roman patrimony. I will look into your response to my previous question; I had no idea that there existed the possibility of three current alternatives. Perhaps these are the areas of coexistence I am both referring to and searching for in the future Ordinariate.
Thank you for your informed response, you have taught me many things I did not know (I am a spiritual theologian, not a liturgist. However, I really do consider all prayer books as primarily spiritual in emphasis and origin).
Blessings.
Clark
I would almost be tempted to wonder whether this doesn't pour cold water on this whole thing. If I were the Pope and read this article and comments, I wonder if I would not have second thoughts.
However, I think the solution is in the Apostolic Constitution. In liturgical terms, there are three rites available: the two forms of the Roman Rite and, presently, the Book of Divine Worship, and, in the future, a revised Anglican rite approved for use in the Ordinariates. The extraordinary form of the Roman rite includes not only the Roman Rite in its revision of 1962 but also all the other traditional western rites – including Sarum. Such a solution was certainly designed to exclude apocryphal do-it-yourself revisions of the Prayer Book, and that Prayer Book forms, when desired, will be available in the explicitly authorised forms.
The old question comes up again – to whom is Anglicanorum Coetibus addressed, FiF or the TAC? The answer is neither. It is addressed to groups of Anglicans from all Anglican backgrounds who wish to form or join the future Ordinariates. Not all FiF clergy and laity will join an English Ordinariate, and nor will all TAC clergy and laity or all former Anglican converts to the Catholic Church. Some of each group will accept the offer, and others will come to terms with women bishops in the Anglican Communion, form more alphabet soup continuing churches, stay in their modern Roman rite parish or whatever.
Those of us who want to join an Ordinariate should not be put off by those who for one reason or another prefer to stay as they are or find another solution. We all have different ideas about Anglican Patrimony. My own vision is distinctly pre-Reformation, but others prefer to refer to the classical Anglican schools or the 19th century.
As I have already said, I would favour a "broad-church" and comprehensive view, except that we should all be orthodox according to the Catholic Catechism and accept the same sanctifying, teaching and governing authority in the Pope.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (In matters of faith unity, in questionable or discussable things freedom, in all things charity) – attributed to St Augustine.
I understand your apprehension, Fr. Chadwick. When I listened to the conference speakers, I felt as though a bucket of water had been poured on the A.C. However, as important as England is in our history, it's not the whole picture — and those taking part in the conference don't represent all Anglicans in England. I wrote the article because it's important for us to face the reality of the great diversity amongst Anglicans, and what that might mean for the establishment of Ordinariates. Also, our facing of this reality really forces all of us to consider carefully what our patrimony is. It's been undefined until now — we tend to "know what we mean" when we use the term, but we need to be able to get specific, since the Holy Father himself uses the term in the A.C.
It is odd that the organizers invited two strong critics of the A.C. and no strong allies – what are they thinking?
About the liturgical questions – all of these problems will be solved by one thing: When the liturgical books are published, we will obediently worship with them, and be grateful.
Regarding John's comments, I would hope that Rome would grant the Personal Ordinariates the right to use the Sarum books in both Latin and stately English. In whatever "Anglican Use" is approved, I hope that it includes the option of a Eucharistic Prayer based on Prayer Book sources, especially 1549.
Maximilian:
I think Fr.Anthony has already dealt with the Sarum books by pointing out that it is considered a legitimate variant of the E.F.. As such, As I indicated in my intial comment, I would hope that it might be available in a "sacral English" translation. There might also be a case for some revision, as has also happened in the case of the Ambrosian and Dominican uses,, though not necessarily as drastic!
Fr. Anthony:
I hope that this thread is not a pouring of cold water. Rather, in my own comment, I was seeking to elucidate why, in the eyes of the other members of what icall "the diaspora of faithful Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics in England might appear to be in a [to them] unduly prolonged period of prayerful discernment. It appears to be almost certain that there will be no place within the C.of E. for those who cannot accept its traducing of its Catholic inheritance, perticularly in the matter of episcopacy, the temporal fons et origo, or more properly the channel (for Christ is the real source) of the certainty of the scaraments and the grace that flows from them. Some cling to the C.of.E as to a worn, comfortable, but leaky pair of shoes, or to an old but threadbare, overcoat that once was grandad's, but the realisation will dawn that Rome is offering all that it needful to salvation, and that that offering is more than could be hoped for.
Many will be waiting for others to throw of the old shoes and coat and step into the new watertight shoes and warm overcoat the Pope in the Ordinariate is offering, to see if the new really do fit. It as if their eyes are blinking in the dazzling light emanating from Rome, but a stheir eyes become, some more rapidly than others, to the new light, they will move inexorably towrads that light. faithful Anglicans must, at all costs, avoid the sort of mindset which says, "I am ready to climb aboard the good ship Ordinariate today, you must too, or you forfeit the claim to be a proper Catholic". No, this is no time-limited offer from the Holy Father, no last-chance to jumb aboard unless you sign up this week. It brings to mind rather the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard: some came at dawn, others at noon, others justr before knocing-off time in the evening. But their reward was the same.
All that said, for English stipendiary priests and bishops with wives and children there are very real practical problems: stipend, house, pension, which probably figure larger than the threadbare overcoat of theC.of E. There is also for those who take these things seriously the oaths they have made to bishop, not only of canonical obedience in "all things lawful and honest", but also (if they have a cure) of "feeding the sheep", the flock, the people that have been committed to their charge. Should they ask for a dispensation before entering the Ordinariate?
For the laity, the problem, as Bishop Edwin pointed out in an earlier posting, is the commithement to "their" church, meaning the bulding which they always got to through thick and thin, or will stop going to if they disapprove of the new vicar, only to return many years later. It may, or may not be their actual parish church. It may be the church church where many generations of their ancestors have been baptized, shriven, married, houselled and buried. It has been aptly said that whereas Romans go to Mass, Anglicans go to church, their church, and sometimes it has been naughtily added – "to worship the vicar".
Instead of crticising those who are travelling slowly, those who have a seemingly insuperable attachment to the "C.of E.", may I beg those tempted to crticise them instead devote their time and energy to prayer for them, for the Conversion of England, Our Lady's Dowry.
Thank you,
Regards
John U.K.
Very good comment – thank you. It was not my intention to criticise those who feel compelled to "travel slowly". I do my best to avoid polemics and be positive.
Indeed, I have made the point about Sarum "coming under" the extraordinary form of the Roman rite – but, like the 1962 Roman rite, it is in Latin. It would be a good thing to seek permission from Rome to use the English version as translated by Canon Warren in 1911 (the texts are available on the Internet and can be printed).
The only thing is that there should be an overtaking lane for those who want to go up to the speed limit rather than piddle along at 30 mph on a road where the speed limit is 50 mph. I express, in an analogy of conditions often found when driving a car on the road, the idea that those who are ready for the Ordinariate scheme should not be slowed down by those who are much more reticent or frankly not interested in the Pope's offer.
Indeed, we should pray for all in both joy and sorrow, and that God's will may be done.
Dear Father,
I hope I had not implied any criticism of yourself, or Fr.Phillips, Fr.LR, at al. who have made such valuable and measured contributions to this thread. The difficulties of cold print….
I was merely seeking to try and give some measure of understanding to those who are perplexed by the seeming slowness of the response of FiF and other Anglo-Catholics in the C.of E., and to a certain extent those in the C.in W., and E.C.of S. as well. For example Fr.Rob Scheiblhofer when he wrote in #14 above (tho' the numbers seem to change!):
The fact is they deserted our patrimony when they started using the Roman Missal.
With regard to the two lane highway, I heartily concur with you. I would go further:
] will move in the only lane, at its appropriate speed [determined, no doubt, by Rome] and not hang about behind anyone. Those who come later will be welcome aboard, (but perhaps with less room for baggage?), but the ship/'bus will not slacken speed.
The ship [or, I suppose, since it is a highway, the 'bus
What I am not privy to, and you may be in a better position t know, though unable to share, is to what extent the "slowness" of Anglicans in the U.K. is hampering progress in setting up an Ordinariate with the T.A.C., whom, I understand, are ready to go aboard the good ship Ordinariates.
I suppose with the fact that AC envisages Ordinariates, rather than a single Ordinariate, each responsible directly to the Holy See, means one should be talking about a flotilla of ships or convoy of 'buses rather than a single ship/'bus..
There is also the perhaps so far little noticed sentence in A.C.:
§2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed
[emphasis mine]
Best regards,
John U.K.
Fr. Anthony-
See #26 above. I would also enjoy your thoughts and insights.
Blessings.
Clark
On Sarum, I think that, sooner or later, we shall need a declaration from Rome on whether or not the Use has lapsed owing to desuetude. If it has not, It is *already* covered by Article III of A.C., although it might be restricted to England (or to Southern adn south-west England) and to celebration in Latin. To use an English translation would require permission from Rome.
I favour restoration of Sarum as an option, both in Latin and in sacral English. But I wonder if a new edition might make optional some changes in the rubrics for practical celebration in small communities.
P.K.T.P.
Though his opinion is opinion and not the authority of the Church, Fr. Seán Finnegan is a good priest and on The Anglo Catholic. This is the priest who celebrated the famous Sarum Masses in Merton College Chapel, Oxford, in the 1990's.
His opinion is that the legal dubium needs to be cleared with Rome. He now always celebrates the Roman rite in one form or the other depending on his congregation (he is a parish priest).
One of the comments to this blog says:
Concerning the legal status, contact with the Congregation for Divine Worship has yielded positive results, insofar as Archbishop Ranjith has indicated that the Congregation is perfectly comfortable that the Sarum Use be celebrated, and that no formal permission is needed (though out of common courtesy one should request, or even inform, the Ordinary of the Mass's occurence).
Other comments are positive about Sarum enjoying the same status as the Dominican, Lyons, Ambrosian and other rites, since they passed the "two-hundred year rule" in 1570.
The issue is the use of Sarum since it was no longer in "mainstream" use since about the 17th century.
It would seem that the Congregation for Divine Worship (and Fr Finnigan would give us more detail) saw red in the 1990's because it perceived the celebration os Sarum masses as a way of getting round a restrictive interpretation of the Ecclesia Dei adflicta indult of 1988.
I would agree that approval would be needed for an English translation. The problem is having enough clergy and lay people interested enough in the Use of Sarum to make a credible application to the CDW for permission or some kind of "indult".
I note on the New Liturgical Movement that the old Ambrosian Rite has been recently celebrated in Rome. The local rite in Rome is the Roman Rite. I once read something about the Ambrosian Rite being celebrated in Telford Parish Church, Shropshire, in the 14th century.
I think the Roman authority is going to be surprisingly broad in matters of liturgy – the only way to bring us out of the dualism between tight-fisted rubricism and liturgical "creativity". The new idea about the liturgy is undo the clamps, let the liturgy "breathe". There's nothing to stop the liberals abusing, but undoing the "screws" would give breathing room for the liturgy to develop organically and find its own balance. Reviving local medieval uses would contribute to a refreshing and new liturgical spirit in the Church.
Interesting comments, Fr. Chadwick. On the use of local Uses outside their territories, I note also that Fr. Franz Prosinger, F.S.S.P., I'm told, has celebrated according to the Braga Use in many places, all of them apparantly outside the Archdiocese of Braga.
There is no question that Sarum qualifies under the 200 year rule stipulated in Q.P.T. of 1570 (but then so do some other English Uses, I'm guessing). The question is whether or not a right to use it has lapsed since then owing to desuetude. Should Fr. Chadwick (and others in one place) offer it regularly as an ordinariate priest for thirty consecutive years, it would become part of the of the law again owing to the rules regarding custom under the 1983 Code of Canons. Of course, I am not counselling anyone to break the law in the meantime . . . .
P.K.T.P.
Exact numbers of years are just a counting game! After the liturgical reform of the 1960's the Dominican Order totally dropped its old rite, and there is no official record of its being used privately. It fell into desuetude, albeit for about thirty years, the length of time you (the 1983 Code) say it would take to return to customary legitimacy. Now a small number of Dominicans use the old Dominican rite regularly, and it is considered to be "covered" by Summorum Pontificum in the same way as the 1962 Roman Missal.
I believe the usage of the Sarum Use in either Latin or English will remain marginal. Regretfully, but we have to be realistic. I have learned to say the Sarum Mass from the rubrics available in printed editions of the Sarum Missal, and when something isn't clear, I interpret in the light of what the Dominicans do, since the rites are so similar and from the same source. I recommend this amazing site on the Dominican liturgy. You can even find a tutorial for Low Mass. Perhaps, I could be on record as celebrating the Sarum Mass for so many years, and other priests can "relay" until the thirty years have elapsed. But Rome doesn't work like that. Because those notions are part of the authoritarian and micro-managed character of the Counter Reformation Church that produced the reaction to the post Vatican II euphoria.
As I have said, I am personally not for asking for explicit permission for everything. If that had been the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre and the French traditionalists in the 1970's, the old Roman rite would still be in mothballs now together with the letter of application. What is now called the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite was mostly used illicitly from a date in 1974 when Paul VI clamped down on traditionalists until the indults of 1984 and 1988. Even then, most old rite Masses were not celebrated under the aegis of those two indults. Rome will always finish up by accepting a fait accompli if you persevere for a substantial length of time (ie. it isn't just a passing fad).
The lesson from all this is that if we are doing something and for the right reasons (piety, desire to contribute to the spiritual health of the Church, pastoral reasons, etc.), the Church will accept it and allow it to continue. This was the principle when the Book of Divine Worship was approved, as adopting Anglican customs that were hitherto considered as heretical and un-catholic.
I do believe, in the light of Benedict XVI's record so far, that the Counter-Reformation and the compulsory nature of the Paul VI reforms are a thing of the past. The Church needs to recover, not by legislation, force and authority (because the modern world will no longer obey a Pope) – but through organic growth and the "brick-by-brick" of Fr Z. We are part of that process, but we won't live long enough to see the fruition.
In many ways, we return to the early Middle Ages. Feudalism is returning, since the debt economy makes people vassals to the politicians and the bankers. The Renaissance and the Baroque, together with their Modern and Post-modern developments are exhausted and over. Perhaps the clean slate and being driven into the catacombs will bring about this new process of organic development over a few decades or centuries. Who knows?
Yes, very good, Frs. LR and Chadwick. The BCP, with the stress on the notion of COMMON prayer, holds out the possibility and potential of greater sanctification for the Christian masses through a tradition of prayer that fairly invites participation on the part of all the People of God. This is, imho, a big part of the "precious deposit" the Anglican Way can bestow upon the Universal Church.
And that being said, I definitely like the analogy of the "slow lane/fast lane". One thing that really annoys this admitted heavy-footer here in Florida are the all too frequent examples of lazy-day drivers who love to hug that left/passing lane going 10 miles an hour BELOW an already very reasonable speed limit! Please, brethren, if you're just not sure about all this, so be it, but please reserve the passing lane for those who are ready to move forward. Eventually, by the Grace of God, we'll all hopefully get to our blessed destination, but as the old military adage goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!"
Oh, and a P.S. I wonder where the spirit of Winston Churchill would wander if he were alive today and the Holy Spirit had grabbed him by the collar. The man who took the heat for the Dardinelles – and later vindicated for the same by any reasonable historian – certainly knew how to stand boldly and move forward!
This is what Churchill said on June 4th 1940. It brings tears to the eyes to see what is happening to England now, my mother land. I am afraid now as would have been my grandparents in those days.
"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.
The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Perhaps some wisdom from the past will help in contemplating the future.
“Faith … acts promptly and boldly on the occasion, on slender evidence.”
“Fear not that thy life shall come to an end, but rather that it shall never have a beginning.”
“A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault.”
- John Henry Cardinal Newman
Blessings.
Clark
Frankly, I would be happy — litugically speaking, because in my experience the "patrimony" includes a lot of other things — with access to the English Missal, to be followed at some point by a revival of Sarum, in the same manner as the Dominican, Carmelite, and other rites which are slowly coming back to life.
Dear Mr. Coulombe:
I am delighted that you are here at this site. I really loved your 'Cardinal Mahony Love Network' with the advanced graphics given the early time of its posting. I also remember your occasional articles in "Monarchy Canada". I've been a member of the Monarchist League since the 1970s. I'm tired of hearing about people who were liberal when they were young but later 'wised up and saw the truth'. I'm one of those who was a monarchist and a traditionalist by the time I was four years old and have become more and more entrenched in those positions ever since.
P.K.T.P.
This is highly relevant:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
There is definitely an argument to be made for diversity, one of the elements of the genius of the English Missal is its potential for adaptation (within limits) to local situations; one could have the 'judica me' and Roman 'confiteor' at the beginning or the Collect for Purity and Lord's Prayer (for example). This means that one can have a suitably adorned B.C.P. Mass (add in the minor propers, offertory prayers); or one can have the T.L.M. rendered into liturgical English. A similar book would provide for those of us who prefer traditional liturgical formulations. For most of my compatriots the books are already authorised in the form of the N.O., though I am getting a sense that this is used increasingly from joyful obedience and a specifically legitimate and approved 'English Missal' would certainly attract attention.
Regarding the Divine Office, I would suggest a similar practice. Have options of psalm and canticle antiphons (translations are already ready for approval in books such as the Anglican Breviary, most are direct scriptural quotations as well) for those of us who like to enrich the pattern with such elements to use, and those who prefer the straight sobriety of the currently approved B.C.P. Office to omit.
From this article I have discovered that I am part of the "British Museum Piece" faction. Thank you John UK. This explains why the western rite of the antiochian orthodox church exists and holds immense appeal to myself. Though I sympathize with the older form of the Anglo Catholic faction and don't really mind the 18th century "Our Lady of the Rosary" or "Sacred Heart" feasts, they don't strike me as quite ideal because they came to exist largely because of the post-reformation catholic culture. Nevertheless they do have nice chants and I have a hard time finding anything theologically wrong with them, except for the depictions of Jesus heart itself in images.
As for the Psalm translation:
"WHEN our Lord turned the captivity of Sion: we were made as (a) men
comforted." – is the translation from the 1610 Douay Rheims bible.
This bible translation is nearly always significantly more accurate to the vulgate latin words than the Thomas Coverdale. It does not freely paraphrase to great extents to the point where sometimes the meaning is quite different, it is very literally exactly the same as the latin meaning.
I will admit that occasionally a Thomas Coverdale psalm may almost equal accuracy to a Douay Rheims translation, and sometimes the translation can be slightly more syllabic/singable in coverdales. But in general Coverdale is slightly inferior to it.
Because of this I compare every single Thomas Coverdale Psalm to the same Psalm in the Douay Rheims 1610 and 1750 Challoner bibles, as well as to the vulgate latin itself. I also compare them to the Greek Septuagint english translation from: http://www.pomog.org/psalter.shtml. I very rarely find divergences between these. Where I find noticable divergences I always modify the Coverdale to be more literal or accurate, I find that this method is nearly.. the perfect compromise. The singability and poetic beauty remains completely intact and I am left with a feeling of comfort that I am singing these psalms with nearly the same meaning God intended them to have for all time.
Charles Winfred Douglas' Monastic Diurnal is one of the greatest things I ever discovered and I would favour a slight variation of it, if not the actual book being made the standard Divine Office book for use in the Ordinariates. I would probably not want anything to do with the ordinariate otherwise. The Sarum Antiphoner on MusicaSacra as a .pdf is another potential. The more Sarum the better.